This is way harder to speculate, but I would dare so where hit rate is concerned definately it would be as posted among the western missiles thread.

When it comes to the rest of the world, it is really hard to say, the Ruskie and I should say former eastern block or non western aligned nations have supersonic speed missiles. And that could give them an edge as being harder to shoot down and shorter reaction times for the targets.

However when it comes to Ruskie missile technology, (which is what the rest of the non western aligned world's missile technology are based upon) it is kind of suspect. As on paper, the flight performance of the Ruskie missiles actually looks better than most of the western missiles most of the time. Larger, faster and with bigger warheads even longer range, they have never been able to cause much damadge to the Israeli navy or the US navy. If you remember in the previous persian gulf encounters, the USN succesfully brought down silk worm missiles.

But as seen from the Hanit incident, either due to blind luck or human error on the part of the Hanit, some of these eastern block missiles can still be effective. When I saw that C-802 missile on a static display, I thought it looked kind of mickey mouse and small. Yet on checking wiki, (again quite suspect) it claimed that these chinese missiles are known to be the best aircraft launched antiship missiles that are very hard to jam and has a hit rate of 98%.

So would you believe your own press release and marketing hype ? Best if we could get Nat Geo, History channel and Discovery together to sponsor the mythbusters to do an objective side by side every missile trial???

Oh it also could be that the Ruskies actually make better missiles for all I know, they actually home in and will strike their all targets. Just that western navy anti - missile defenses are that much better that they are able to counter the threat of these missiles?????? So we will not know ?

But as seen from the Hanit incident, either due to blind luck or human error on the part of the Hanit, some of these eastern block missiles can still be effective.

The post event analysis from the Israelies shows a series of IDF human failure errors leading to successful launches. It also shows that the missiles lacked discrimination. (hitting a freighter and a stern mounted "sig loud" structure shows a lack of discrimination)

But as seen from the Hanit incident, either due to blind luck or human error on the part of the Hanit, some of these eastern block missiles can still be effective.

The post event analysis from the Israelies shows a series of IDF human failure errors leading to successful launches. It also shows that the missiles lacked discrimination. (hitting a freighter and a stern mounted "sig loud" structure shows a lack of discrimination)

Damage caused in the Hanit (and freighter) incident does not seem to match to the purported size of a C-802 warhead. Could it have been another type?

It most likely could have been like the HMS Sheffield exocet missile strike. The warhead did not detonate, but the missile fuel did most of the damage. And in order for the warhead not to detonate in the fire, the crew had to fight the fire for their lives. If you saw the hanit, even by the time the first picture (that was after some time after the strike) of the missile hole was shown on the Hanit, small amounts of smoke were seen to be coming out from it.

Perhaps the violence of the missile strike affects the detonator to the warhead in some of these non exploding anti ship missiles. That is why I did not rate the exocet to highly.

As for supersonic missiles, the first missiles deployed by the Soviet Union were actually the size of aircraft drones and were supersonic. However the size of them may them as clear as aircraft targets for the erm old time SAM systems that were on service then.

Israelis got lucky that time. The POG C802 hit stern area near a crane-like thing on the helicopter deck. Apparently that thing has the biggest RCS on the whole ship. The missile exploded on the helicopter deck, not inside the structure.